UC Quits National Merit Program

Parents Forum
121

<p>"(Personally, in my profession I want the ones who think creatively, have broad analytic skills, work hard, work well with others, write well, and turn out good "product." I don't give a fig about their test scores.)"</p>

<p>All of that was desired in my profession, journalism, and there seemed to be a very high correlation with test scores. This particularly was true when it came to analytical skills and critical thinking skills.</p>

<p>IMO one reason why many students don't do well on CR and V parts of the SAT is inadequate analytical skills. They seem to be able to get a superficial, but incorrect, understanding of the material. Some such students may get high grades if the teacher will spoonfeed them exactly what will be on a test, but the same students don't do well when tests require them to do critical thinking, not regurgitate answers.</p>

122

<p>I have a daughter who attends the school with 40+ valedictorians
Other schools also have a high number because the schools don't grade on a curve. The students at the Seattle school are often from the districts gifted program and are taking many AP courses- although since 4.0 is not wieghted- Aps are not a requirement for valedictorian.
Colleges are not shunning graduates of the school- on the contrary- many attend Ivies and other top colleges every year.
My daughter who attended another top local school also had a high number of students who attend top schools( virtually 100%), this school also doesn't rank- but neither does it have ANY valedictorians as such.
as long as schools are preparing students for life afterwards, whether the workforce or college- does it really matter how many people are high achievers?
I wanted my youngest to attend this school precisely BECAUSE they have so many students who are high achievers, I think it gives the school a more academic atmosphere or at least many of the classes, than a school where the focus is on sports teams</p>

123

<p>My experience is that the main thing test prep does is cause the kid to focus on the test and become familiar with test strategies; sadly, I know quite a few families who spend many thousands of dollars on tutors and their kids improved slightly, no better than kids who studied from books. The books/articles on this topic show that the kids who do the very best on the tests are those who excel at demanding schools, have read various, challenging books for many years and who are highly motivated and disciplined learners. The tests may confirm that the high achievers in school are in fact capable of continuing that level of performance when compared to other, top students.</p>

124

<p>I should add the book "The Sat, the perfect score" is very interesting on this topic.</p>

125

<p>"Am I biased for refusing to agree with the notion that the admission is entirely arbitrary and that adcoms are a bunch of duffuses who could use a dartboard to make better decisions? Am I biased to refuse to attack one of the few measurable elements of the system? Am I biased for not jumping on the bandwagon of the eternal malcontents?"</p>

<p>At least as regards the high-fallutin' private colleges, I don't think - in aggregate mind you - that decisions are arbitrary in the least. These paid and well-trained professionals, with often decades of experience behind them, know how to get what they want within the limits of their applicant pool. They have a financial aid budget that (regardless of the nonsense they say about "need-blind") they are not supposed to overspend, especially since EVERYONE is receiving a subsidy to attend, the only question being how large. SATs (as well as zip codes) help them mightily in that regard - CollegeBoard data indicate that, again in aggregate, a 1400 (old) SAT score is simply a 1200 plus $100,000 in annual family income, and the tests provide them with pseudo-intellectual cover. They need to get the football quarterback and lacrosse goalie, a couple of majors for Coptic anthropology, the grandson of the guy who just built the new molecular sciences building, the daughter the city councilmember who could otherwise raise their taxes. For the benefit of the rich white folks, they need some color - not too much, mind you, but enough that visiting dignitaries will see rainbows when they walk around (as long as they don't find out that in other demographic categories, they look the same as the rich white ones, things will turn out just fine.) They need some intellectual rigor, although about 75% of the applicant pool can provide that. Legacies are good! they often have money to begin with, and maybe they can be separated from more of it.</p>

<p>If you ran one of these admissions departments, given the school's institutional mandates handed to you by the President and Board of Trustees, you probably wouldn't do much differently.</p>

<p>BUT, and this is a BIG but, there is no necessary reason why a public institution paid for with public tax dollars has to have the same institutional mandates using the same admissions screens, or in this case, something much smaller - a few merit scholarships. If folks are being rejected from UCLA and ending up at Yale, well, I can hardly say that I think that is a problem worth worrying about. It would seem to me to be suggesting that both UCLA and Yale have done a fine job (or a lousy one, depending on your perspective), and leave it at that.</p>

126

<p>
[quote]
Because the one who "tests well" may well just be the one with parents who could afford expensive test prep or have given specific encouragement to focus on tests. They are not necessarily the smartest or the most qualified for admission. (Personally, in my profession I want the ones who think creatively, have broad analytic skills, work hard, work well with others, write well, and turn out good "product." I don't give a fig about their test scores.)

[/quote]
</p>

<p>But what about the kids who worked hard for their scores, who spent $50 to buy some test prep books and turned that investment into an extraordinary score? In order to try to avoid the people for whom money buys scores, you also eliminate those for whom either hard work or brilliance does it, and those are people you want to work with.</p>

<p>
[quote]
My experience is that the main thing test prep does is cause the kid to focus on the test and become familiar with test strategies;

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Is that such a horrible thing? Being able to do basic math and read a passage and understand it? This week, the International Math Olympiad took place. There the problems are so difficult that simply understanding them takes a long effort. However, there are no complaints about the fact that the high scorers spent years and years practicing strategies for this exam. In fact, they are heavily recruited at the elite schools.</p>

127

<p>The students whom I have seen who score high enough to get NM have been testing well for all of their lives. These were the same students who were invited to participate as 7th graders in talent searches such as the ones operated by Johns Hopkins or Duke.</p>

<p>They may have had some test prep in h.s., but that literally was icing on the cake.</p>

<p>In fact, most of the students whom I see getting the very expensive test prep are students who score slightly above average, and who are trying to get into the 1300s to raise their chances to get into more selective colleges.</p>

<p>IMO it's a myth that the NM type high scorers reached such heights because of expensive test prep. Most read extensively and take rigorous courses. Both activities highly correlate with doing well on the SAT.</p>

128

<p>
[quote]
IMO it's a myth that the NM type high scorers reached such heights because of expensive test prep. Most read extensively and take rigorous courses. Both activities highly correlate with doing well on the SAT.

[/quote]
I agree completely with that. But this doesn't mean that SAT scores on the whole aren't a very good predictor of a student's college performance.</p>

129

<p>I have never seen so many "sour grapes" posts in my life.</p>

130

<p>"I agree completely with that. But this doesn't mean that SAT scores on the whole aren't a very good predictor of a student's college performance."</p>

<p>Well, if the CollegeBoard itself categorically refuses to make that claim, why should we do it for them?</p>

131

<p>Mini, I'm sorry but can you elaborate your point here? Thanks.</p>

132

<p><<<in fact,="" most="" of="" the="" students="" whom="" i="" see="" getting="" very="" expensive="" test="" prep="" are="" who="" score="" slightly="" above="" average,="" and="" trying="" to="" get="" into="" 1300s="" raise="" their="" chances="" more="" selective="" colleges.="">>></in></p>

<p>This is actually quite true, confirmed by several test prep companies we've worked with. </p>

<p>My son rolled out of bed one March morning to take the SAT's with no preparation whatsoever other than making sure he had a functioning calculator and two #2 pencils. His score, 1370 (710 V, 660 M), wasn't what he needed for where he wanted to go, so he reluctantly signed up for an expensive test prep class. After the first class, he announced he would not be back because the class seemed to be focused on reaching the kind of score that he already had without any preparation. I called company about a possible refund and they confirmed that my son was absolutely right, and said the class would indeed be a waste of time for a 1370 but that one-on-one tutoring could raise his score significantly, particularly in math. He saw their tutor 5 times over the summer, one hour each, and he scored 1520, 720 V, 800 M, in October. </p>

<p><<<imo it's="" a="" myth="" that="" the="" nm="" type="" high="" scorers="" reached="" such="" heights="" because="" of="" expensive="" test="" prep.="" most="" read="" extensively="" and="" take="" rigorous="" courses.="" both="" activities="" highly="" correlate="" with="" doing="" well="" on="" sat.="">>></imo></p>

<p>Average students with average intelligence in an average curriculum are unlikely to qualify regardless of how much they prepare for the PSAT, best preparation can be the difference between qualifying and almost qualifying for many high-performing students. </p>

<p>My son barely missed qualifying. He did not prepare for the PSAT. He got a perfect score on the PSAT Writing and nearly perfect on the Verbal. Where he fell down was on the math. He was, at the time of the PSAT test, taking Calculus AB and getting A's. He was the top math student in the junior class at a very competitive high school. He qualified for the AIME test. He graduated from a HPYS-type college with two degrees, both in math. But his PSAT score in math (and his first "no prep" math SAT scores) were unimpressive. Why? </p>

<p>Because he didn't understand how the test worked. Five one-hour visits from a tutor did not teach him any math. All tutoring taught him was how to not "overthink" the problems, how to move quickly through the test, and strategies to maximize the potential to get an 800. Which he did--the second time around, after expensive test preparation. </p>

<p>I have since had two other children go through this process, and we have worked with various test-prep outfits and they all say that this is very typical. High-performing kids can get tripped up by these tests and coaching does help.</p>

133

<p>"Mini, I'm sorry but can you elaborate your point here? Thanks."</p>

<p>Sure. The CollegeBoard makes one claim for the SAT, and one claim only. They don't claim it measures aptitude (in fact, changed the name to make that clear), or achievement. The only claim they will make for the test is that it is a predictor of "first year" college performance. That's all. What the University of California did was study whether that claim was true, and found that to a very, very minor degree it was, but only for white students, and signficantly underpredicted performance by minorities. This is what got them to suspend use of the test for a time.</p>

<p>Other colleges - notably Bates, Bowdoin, Mount Holyoke, and Smith - have in various ways studied whether, among enrolled students (which is of course a limited group), there was an association between higher SAT scores and better college outcomes four years later. They couldn't find one.</p>

<p>What the SAT folks did find was an association between scores and income, though actually, to be more precise, between scores and the average income of the area surrounding the school (or that of the parents at the prep schools), though not necessarily that of one's own parents, and the highest level of educational attainment of one parent.</p>

134

<p>tabbyzmom,
then you haven't been watching or evaluating carefully.
(1) many of the anti-test replies in this & other similar threads are from parents of students who did & do quite well on standardized tests of all kinds, thank you very much.
(2) the "sour grapes" replies are concentrated on EA/ED results threads, and especially in the Anti Affirm. Action or Anti-URM threads.</p>

135

<p>Standardized tests are just a cheap and easy way to compare students from vastly different schools/homeschools. Yes, each student is an individual with unique talents that should be considered in the process and there are lots of merit/talent scholarships that do this. But if you can think of a better, faster way of comparing the academic ability of millions of students each year than standardized testing--sell it! Grade inflation is terrible. (One example--a local HS has an average senior gpa of 3.6, the average ACT score is 21--back in my day, 3.6 was easily in top 10%). There has to be a way around it.</p>

<p>Most NMFs get nothing from the Corporation. Most scholarships are small ($2500) and come from the colleges themselves or other donors. The exception is that a few schools like Arizona, Oklahoma, Tulsa, Florida (please add to or correct this list) will offer a free ride (tuition, fees, room, board) to any NMF. Other schools make this offer only to in-state students. This deal benefits mainly middle-class "over-represented" students whose parents are looking for a bargain. (Include me among those parents--my S is a likely NMS considering some of these schools). NMFs are top students (top 1% by state, and at least top 3% nationally, I believe) who can get into many competitive schools--the wealthy NMFs aren't going to choose Arizona State. However, if Arizona ends up getting a few budget-minded NMFs from CA, good for Arizona, and good for those students/parents who get a free ride. By the way, doesn't the NM Corp. have National Achievement Scholars and National Hispanic Scholars with lower cutoff scores to include more minority students among those recognized? CA will still use SAT scores to compare students, right? So is anything really changing--other than traffic to AZ --of over-represented middle-class students who want to be recognized for their achievement?</p>

136

<p>Oh, but I have watched and evaluated carefully, epiphany, thank you very much.</p>

137

<p>Thanks, epiphany. What you say fits my kids exactly. NM and NM commended, and they did great in the admissions process without ever taking the test-taking overseriously. But neither they nor I support these tests.</p>

138

<p>
[quote]
Even if the students are otherwise equal, I still want the ones who test well. Given two kids with the full package and different test scores, why WOULDN'T you want one who also has the neccessary skills to test well?

[/quote]
To my good friend, elizabeth22, I have to agree with mackinaw and go one further. Because when you get out into that "real world", you will see that high test scores do not correlate well with success measured in a number of ways - career success, contribution to community and society, parenting skill etc.</p>

<p>Now, all you high test scorers, don't flame me. I am a high test scorer too (I believe I'm about a 1550 recentered). There are many great successes among the "good testers". But I can tick off dozens and dozens among my own friends and acquaintances who are at the very top of my admiration list who performed average on professional tests, if not mediocre or downright borderline.</p>

<p>Like mackinaw says, give me creativity, insight, persistence, interpersonal skills... any day. Of course, I want intelligence but not as measured on a scale of 0-1600 (or whatever scale we're into this season).</p>

139

<p>". Because when you get out into that "real world", you will see that high test scores do not correlate well with success measured in a number of ways - career success, contribution to community and society, parenting skill etc." </p>

<p>I don't think that's completely true. I would imagine that high scores on the SAT do correlate well with things like career success in medicine and law, for instance. After all, people with low SAT scores are probably not going to get the graduate and professional school test scores high enough to go to law or medical schools. </p>

<p>I agree with you that high SAT scores probably do not mean a person is a good (or bad) parent or will or will not contribute to society. However, when colleges are making selections, the #1 thing that they're looking for are students who can flourish academically, including passing tests at college.</p>

<p>When it comes to figuring out how people will contribute to society, that can be a tipping factor, but colleges aren't going to accept a person who looks like a strong potential contributor, but seems as if they would flunk out of college. </p>

<p>Meanwhile, there are plenty of high scorers who have creativity, insight, persistence, and interpersonal skills just as there are plenty of low scorers who have those attributes.</p>

<p>When it comes to the top colleges, they have the luxury of selecting students who have high scores and who also have the traits that you mention. In fact, because of an abundance of outstanding applicants, top colleges t also have the luxury of turning down many students who have the complete package including the character factors.</p>

140

<p>I don't disagree with most of your points, NSM. Bates and others have shown that they can do the job quite fine without the SAT. I happen to prefer that.</p>

<p>The reason I prefer that relates to your point about wanting students who can "flourish academically, including passing tests at college." This is where the SAT error, when it occurs, bothers me. I am quite confident (I don't have the research but I'm sure it's out there) that those who do well on SATs are likely to do well on their class exams. I do know that there are those who perform very well on in-class tests, mid-terms, finals, research projects but just don't do well on SATs. They may not be the majority, but they are there and they are the ones who suffer, except in fairtest schools like Bates.</p>